49–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–669 

STOP UNWORTHY SPENDING ACT 

DECEMBER 12, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ISSA, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3345] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 3345) to amend title 31, United States 

Code, to consolidate suspension and debarment offices, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 3 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 13 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 16 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 16 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 16 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 16 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 16 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 16 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 17 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 17 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 17 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 17 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 17 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 17 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 19 

The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line numbers 

of the introduced bill) are as follows: 

Page 4, line 2, insert ‘‘suspension and debarment’’ after ‘‘contrary’’. 

Page 5, lines 23 and 24, strike ‘‘case management system,’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Page 6, after line 16, insert the following: 

‘‘(B) The number and summary of agency head 

determinations, if any, that allowed a suspended 

or debarred contractor, grantee, or other recipient 

of Federal financial assistance to receive new Federal funds. 

Page 6, line 17, strike ‘‘(B)’’ and insert ‘‘(C)’’. 

Page 12, line 18, strike ‘‘and’’. 

Page 12, line 24, strike the period and insert ‘‘; and’’. 

Page 12, after line 24, insert the following: 

‘‘(D) the number and summary of agency head 

determinations, if any, that allowed a suspended 

or debarred contractor, grantee, or other recipient 

of Federal financial assistance to receive new Federal funds. 

Page 16, strike lines 4 through 8 and insert the following: 

‘‘(4) TIMELY REFERRALS AND PROCESSING OF CASES.— 

‘‘(A) The regulation shall provide procedures to 

strengthen timely referrals of cases, including— 

‘‘(i) the role of the agency remedy coordination official to act upon cases brought to such 

official’s attention in a timely manner (as required in section 7 of the SUSPEND Act); and 

‘‘(ii) requirements for the Board or the agency suspension and debarment office to review 

the sufficiency of the information in the referred cases and to notify the agency remedy 

coordination official and cognizant Inspector 

General (if the case is originated from the Office of Inspector General) within 30 days after 

the initial referral date for any additional information if needed. 

‘‘(B) The regulation shall require all cases to be 

disposed of within 6 months after the initial referral date, unless the Chair of the Board or the 

agency suspension and debarment officer provides 

a written explanation and estimated timeline to 

the agency remedy coordination official and cognizant Inspector General (if the case is originated 

from the Office of Inspector General). Such written explanation shall be updated every 3 months 

until the final resolution of the case.’’. 

Page 17, line 14, after ‘‘2(b)(2)’’ insert ‘‘and the merits of any 

such waiver’’. 

Page 19, line 11, after ‘‘by’’ insert ‘‘the Office of Inspector General 

of the agency or’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1See Kate M. Manuel, Cong. Research Serv., RL34753, Debarment and Suspension of Government Contractors: An Overview of the Law Including Recently Enacted and Proposed Amendments, at 4 (2012). 2 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–11–739, Suspension and Debarment: Some Agency 

Programs Need Greater Attention, and Governmentwide Oversight Could be Improved, at 1 

(2011) [hereinafter ‘‘GAO–11–739’’]. 3See id. at 22. A debarment typically lasts for a period that is commensurate with the cause 

and generally does not exceed three years. See Kate M. Manuel, Cong. Research Serv., R40633, 

Responsibility Determinations Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation: Legal Standards and 

Procedures, at 4 (2013). A suspension lasts as long as any agency investigation of the underlying 

conduct or ensuing legal proceeding is ongoing. Id. The effect of a suspension or debarment is 

government-wide and not specific to an agency or contract. Id. If no legal proceeding is initiated, 

the suspension cannot exceed 12 months unless an extension is requested. See FAR 9.407–4 

(2008). Any extension that is granted can last no longer than 6 months. See id. 4 Interagency Suspension and Debarment Comm. (ISDC) Rep. on Federal Agency Suspension 

and Debarment Activities (Sept. 18, 2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/isdc/pdf/ 

isdc_section_873_fy_2011_report_to_congress_lieberman.pdf [hereinafter ISDC Annual Report]. 5See Steven Gordon & Richard Duvall, United States: It’s Time to Rethink the Suspension and 

Debarment Process, Bloomberg BNA, 99 FCR 720, at 1 (June 18, 2013), available at http:// 

www.hklaw.com/files/Publication/dd6ffa6c-039a-48a7-9332-0160fec0dae4/Presentation/ 

PublicationAttachment/88ff0ebe0999e7-4094-b1e0-042dbc630a41/ 

TimeToRethinkSuspensionandDebarmentDuvallGordon.pdf. 6See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–13–758, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases (2013) 

(highlights); U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–13–707T, Suspension and Debarment: Characteristics of Active Agency Programs and Governmentwide Oversight Efforts (2013) (statement 

of John Neumann, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Gov’t Accountability 

Office). 7Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively?: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of John Neumann, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office), (statement of Scott Amey, General Counsel, Project on Government Oversight); 

see also GAO–11–739, supra note 2, at 3, 6. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Federal Government seeks to protect the taxpayer by ensuring public funds are not improperly dissipated.1 To that end, federal agencies are required to award contracts and grants only to responsible sources that are ‘‘reliable, dependable and capable of performing the work.’’ 2

Suspension and debarment (S&D) are two of the most powerful 

tools agencies can—and should—use to protect the government’s interests 3 and ‘‘ensur[e] contract and program integrity.’’ 4 It is not 

designed to punish contractors or grantees for past misconduct.5

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the Committee) recognizes the need for a robust S&D program to maintain 

public trust and to provide a level playing field for all responsible 

entities seeking federal financial awards. The Federal Government spends over $1 trillion in contracts and grants annually (in fiscal year 2012, $517 billion in contracts and 

$536 billion in grants).6 Yet, despite the intense Congressional 

oversight efforts in recent years, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Committee’s hearings have found 

that there are serious weaknesses in the S&D programs of numerous agencies.7

These weaknesses have resulted in the award of federal funds to 

companies and individuals who are not responsible contractors or 

grantees—including those with criminal convictions, federal tax liabilities, or terrorist ties. It has also demonstrated that some agencies are either extremely deficient in finding fraud or that their 

programs are practically non-existent—either due to a lack of dedicated staff or a lack of commitment to S&D on the part of the agency. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

8 ISDC Annual Report, supra note 5, at 22. 9See FY 2012—Preliminary Data from ISDC, E-mail from ISDC to Eric Cho, H. Comm. on 

Oversight and Gov’t Reform (Oct. 24, 2013, 16:47 EST) (on file with recipient); 

USASpending.gov. 10See id. 11GAO–11–739, supra note 2, at 12. 12See Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively?: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013). 13Show cause letters are ‘‘pre-notice communications, which advise an entity that it is being 

considered for suspension or proposed debarment.’’ ISDC Annual Report, supra note 5, at 8. 10 

out of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act (‘‘CFO Act’’) agencies used show cause letters in fiscal 

year 2011. See id. 14The FAR calls for informal practices whenever possible when dealing with a vendor. See 

FAR 9.406–3(b)(1) (2013) (‘‘agencies shall establish procedures governing the debarment decisionmaking process that are as informal as is practicable’’). 15See How Convicts and Con Artists Receive New Federal Contracts: Hearing before the H. 

Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 111th Cong. (2009) (statement of Frederic M. Levy, PartFor example, according to the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC), the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), while awarding $402 billion in contracts and 

grants in fiscal year 2011 (which accounted for more than one third 

of the entire federal government contracts and grants spending for 

the year), had a total of 10 discretionary suspension or debarment 

actions.8 In fiscal year 2012, the agency had a total of just 2 discre- tionary suspension or debarment actions while awarding $363 billion in contracts and grants.9 Similarly, the Department of Labor 

(Labor), the Office of Personnel Management, and the Social Security Administration took zero discretionary S&D actions, while 

awarding approximately $11.6 billion, $1.6 billion, and $1.3 billion 

respectively in contracts and grants in fiscal year 2012.10

In 2011, GAO found commonalities amongst those agencies with 

negligible or weak S&D activities, which do not appear to reflect 

the level of activity needed to protect their agencies and the government from harm. Common at those agencies is the lack of: (1) 

a dedicated staff; (2) detailed policies and procedures; and (3) practices that encourage an active referral process.11

The S&D process at some agencies has also been further criticized for a lack of access to the system and a lack of transparency.12 Currently, there is little consistency between agencies’ 

S&D programs, with different agencies employing significantly different approaches to the S&D process. For example, there are wide 

disparities in such key areas as: 

• The use and frequency of use of show cause letters 13 vs. direct 

notices of suspension or proposed debarment. 

• Different views on acceptable remedial measures such as administrative compliance agreements. 

• The process by which S&D cases are prepared and referred to. 

• The process by which administrative records are prepared. 

• The process by which informal no action decisions are made 

and documented. • The use of consensus panels. 

• What ‘‘informal procedures’’ 14 are employed and communication afforded to the accused. 

The Stop Unworthy Spending Act (SUSPEND Act) reforms S&D 

procedures and overhauls the organizational management of S&D 

activity across the government. 

Procedurally, it improves consistency and transparency by: 

i) Combining the two separate S&D regulations governing 

contracts and grants into a single, comprehensive regulation;15


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

ner, McKenna Long & Aldridge). The single regulation has been suggested by the American Bar 

Association, Public Contract Law Section, Committee on Debarment and Suspension. Its draft 

Report on the Study of Federal Debarment and Suspension Processes, however, was not finalized. 

See id. The single regulation will provide contractors with greater access to the processes behind 

the suspension and debarment system. 16See Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively?: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (Testimony of Angela Styles, Partner, Crowell & Moring). 17SAM includes the list of all known excluded entities. Under the SUSPEND Act, the Board 

of Suspension and Debarment would be required to oversee SAM contains a complete and accurate list of all excluded entities. 18See The Honorable Jeri Kaylene Somers, The Board of Contract Appeals: A Historical Perspective, 60 AM. U. L. REV. 745, 755–56 (2011) (noting the consolidation of the civilian boards 

‘‘has been extremely successful, optimizing the role boards play in resolving contract disputes’’). 19 Currently, there are approximately 80 full time and 149 part time attorneys and staff engaged in S&D activities in civilian agencies. The Department of Defense has 24 full time and 

8 part time attorneys and staff. Overall, there are estimated 104 full time and 157 part time 

staff in 24 CFO Act agencies. See ISDC, Supplemental to CRS Inquiry, Federal Suspension and 

Debarment Programs. 20 Id. Fifty cases were chosen simply as an approximate number to ensure that the SDO had 

enough caseloads to occupy him or herself full-time. A disposition may be an adverse action, 

a decision not to proceed, or any other appropriate action. In the DoD components—DLA, Navy, 

Army and Air Force—suspension and debarment officers handled 3,443 S&D between fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011. See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–12–932, Suspension and 

Debarment: DOD has Active Referral Processes, but Action Needed to Promote Transparency, 

at 3 (2012) (note this number only includes those proposed for debarment or suspension actions 

Continued 

ii) Requiring consistent use of show cause letters to ensure 

accused parties are heard prior to any adverse action being 

taken against them;16

iii) Mandating a single government-wide case management 

system to track cases and make publicly available all final resolutions of S&D cases; and 

iv) Enhancing oversight of the excluded parties database 

(known as the System for Award Management or SAM) 17 to 

ensure accuracy, timeliness, and completeness. 

It also requires standard procedures for an expedited review 

process to handle contract or grant fraud in a contingency or timesensitive environment, in both military and non-military settings. 

Organizationally, the SUSPEND Act consolidates more than 40 

executive agency S&D offices into one centralized board—the Board 

of Suspension and Debarment (the Board). This is akin to a successful reform effectuated by the Committee almost a decade ago, 

which consolidated what was then eight separate civilian agency 

Boards of Contract Appeals (as part of fiscal year 2006 National 

Defense Authorization Act) into a single entity.18

By consolidating the S&D offices, the Board will foster more government-wide consistency for how discretionary S&D actions are 

managed and tracked and ensure agencies have dedicated staff and 

resources committed to creating a robust S&D referral program. 

The Board will also be able to optimize the staff and administrative 

resources necessary to accommodate S&D caseloads, thereby reducing costs and increasing efficiencies.19

However, larger (CFO Act) agencies and the military departments can continue to operate their own independent S&D offices 

if granted a waiver upon demonstration of an effective S&D program. Specifically, those agencies need to show: (1) a dedicated 

S&D staff; (2) detailed agency-specific policies and procedures relating to S&D; (3) practices that encourage an active S&D referral 

process; (4) a consolidated S&D program with only one individual 

with the title of Suspension and Debarment Officer (SDO); and (5) 

average annual dispositions of 50 or more S&D cases.20


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

and does not track how many referrals each military department received). DLA alone handled 

1,168 cases during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Id. (noting DLA has three full time attorneys 

working on S&D cases). 21 ISDC Annual Report, supra note 5, at 1. 22See id. 23See Kate M. Manuel, Cong. Research Serv., R41562, Evaluating the Past Performance of 

Federal Contractors, at 1 (2013) (noting there are recent reports documenting that some contractors received new contracts despite allegedly deficient performance); see also Neil Gordon, 

Healthcare.gov Reveals Flaws in Contractor Screening, POGO BLOG, (Jan. 3. 2014), http:// 

www.pogo.org/blog/2014/01/healthcaregov-debacle-revelas-flaws-in-contractor-screening.html. 24GAO–11–739, supra note 2, at 6; see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–05–479, Additional Data Reporting could Improve the Suspension and Debarment Process, (2005). 25GAO–05–479, supra note 27, at 3. 26 Id. 27 GAO–11–739, supra note 2, at 6; see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–09–174, 

Excluded Parties List System: Suspended and Debarred Businesses and Individuals Improperly 

Receive Federal Funds (2009). While the FAR recognizes that there are some circumstances 

where it is appropriate to award a contract to a suspended or debarred contractor, such circumstances must be compelling. FAR 9.405(a). 

The bill strengthens the existing ISDC by formalizing and codifying it in statute (it currently operates pursuant to an Executive 

Order) and by designating as Chair, the Administrator of OMB’s 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The ISDC currently 

operates both as a ‘‘forum for agencies to discuss best practices and 

trends, and current issues and challenges,’’ and is ‘‘a coordinating 

body to promote efficient handling of actions by ensuring there is 

a ‘lead agency’ when two or more agencies have an interest in initiating suspension or debarment proceedings.’’ 21 Even with the consolidation of agency S&D programs, it will still be necessary for the 

ISDC to coordinate lead agency functions amongst the Board and 

the agencies granted a waiver under the SUSPEND Act.22

The bill also requires joint Agency Head/Inspector General guidance in each agency to institutionalize efficient agency-wide coordination of remedies for fraud and corruption related to procurement 

and grant activities, including legal, regulatory, administrative, 

and contractual remedies to maximize timely recovery of funds. 

Finally, the bill will strengthen the identification and referral of 

contractors and grantees that repeatedly fail to perform. Too often, 

a contractor is awarded a new government contract despite a 

lengthy history of poor performance on government contracts.23

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Government’s inconsistent performance in managing S&D 

GAO has consistently reported on weaknesses in agencies’ S&D 

programs and on the weaknesses of the system as a whole. In 2005, 

GAO reported that ‘‘federal agencies may not be consistently identifying suspended or debarred contractors when awarding new contracts.’’ 24 Specifically, GAO found the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) contained insufficient data because it did not allow 

agencies to input contractor’s unique identification numbers.25 The 

report made two recommendations: (1) make contractor identification numbers a required field on the EPLS, and (2) increase data 

sharing on administrative agreements.26

In 2009, GAO found that some contractors continued to receive 

federal funds despite the fact that they were ineligible to be awarded contracts.27 This, in part, was due to the continuing weaknesses 

of the EPLS system—ineffective management of the system and 

missing unique identification numbers, even though GAO in 2005 

recommended that the unique identifiers be a required field in the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

28See GAO–09–174, supra note 30, at 16; GAO–05–479, supra note 27, at 3. 29 Inspector General Report, No. D–2011–83, Additional Actions Can Further Improve the 

DoD Suspension and Debarment Process, at 19 (July 14, 2011) [hereinafter Inspector General 

Report]. 30GAO–11–739, supra note 2. 31 Id. at 7. 32 Id. 33See Manuel, supra note 1, at 1–2. 34See GAO–11–739, supra note 2, at 3. 35See Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively? Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (Testimony of Angela Styles, Partner, Crowell & Moring). Significantly, recent studies report a ‘‘general lack of awareness about suspension and debarment, including limited knowledge about the 

procedures/criteria associated with these actions.’’ Manuel, supra note 1, at 17. 36See ISDC Annual Report, supra note 5, at 9. 37See also Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Transforming Wartime Contracting: Controlling Costs, Reducing Risks, Final Report to Congress, 156, 157 (Aug. 

2011), available at http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/cwc/20110929213820/http:// 

www.wartimecontracting.gov/docs/CWC_FinalReport-lowres.pdf. 38See generally id. 39See Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively?: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (TestiContinued 

system.28 In addition, contracting officers often received ‘‘no results 

from EPLS searches because of typographic and user input errors.’’ 29 SAM, the system now hosting the excluded parties list 

used by all contracting and grant officers, remains incomplete, inaccurate, and not user-friendly. 

In 2011, GAO again issued a report on the status of agencies’ 

S&D programs.30 GAO found that only 16 percent of the cases included on EPLS were discretionary suspensions or debarments over 

the last five fiscal years, suggesting a systemic weakness in referral process.31 The remaining 84 percent of the cases ‘‘were other 

exclusions based on violations of laws and regulations resulting 

from certain prohibited conduct.’’ 32 Such exclusions are mandatory 

because they are required by statute.33 Though GAO noted that 

some agencies have effective S&D programs, many agencies do 

not.34

In addition to GAO’s findings, the Committee’s hearings found 

that the current system produces inconsistent results and leaves 

each agency to devise individual procedures in handling suspension 

or debarment cases. For example, though some agencies use ‘‘show 

cause’’ letters in S&D proceedings, other agencies either do not use 

such letters or are not fully aware of this process.35 Similarly, not 

all agencies use administrative agreements to help resolve suspensions and debarments and the content of those administrative 

agreements can vary significantly amongst the various agencies.36

Recently, at an Oversight and Government Reform (OGR) subcommittee hearing concerning the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the lack of effective S&D referral and case management in contingency settings was seen as a 

significant source of waste and performance risks.37

Finally, despite GAO issuing guidance to the agencies to assess 

and strengthen their S&D programs, a report by the ISDC (dated 

September 18, 2012) reflected persistent weaknesses amongst some 

of the agencies such as HHS, Commerce, Labor, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).38

There is also currently not enough emphasis on suspending or 

debarring contractors and grantees that repeatedly fail to perform. 

Time and time again, agencies award contracts to those contractors 

or grantees that have a history of repeated bad performance.39 The 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

mony of Scott Amey, General Counsel, Project on Government Oversight) (noting the Army used 

multiple contractors in Iraq with a ‘‘laundry list of allegations against them’’). Agencies may also 

waive a contractor’s exclusion which allows the contract to be awarded to a contractor or grantee 

that is currently included on the EPLS. See Manuel, supra note 1, at 13. 40Those two regulations are FAR Subpart 9.4 which governs procurement and 2 CFR §180 

(2013) (as governed by OMB guidance). 41 2 CFR §180.970 (2013). 42GAO–11–739, supra note 2, at 5 (noting ‘‘a suspension or debarment under either the FAR 

or the NCR is recognized under the other and a party precluded from participating in federal 

contracts is also excluded from receiving grants, loans, and other assistance and vice versa.’’). 43 How Convicts and Con Artists Receive New Federal Contracts: Hearing before the H. Comm. 

on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 111th Cong. (2009) (statement of Frederic M. Levy, Partner, 

McKenna Long & Aldridge). 44See GAO–09–174, supra note 30, at 6. 45 Id. at 1. 46 Crater Procurement Assistance Center, Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), http://craterptac.org/federal_procurement/orca.php (last visited Feb. 21, 2014). 47See Matthew Weigelt, GSA’s SAM continues to frustrate its users, FCW, (Sept. 13, 2012), 

http://fcw.com/articles/2012/09/15/buzz-system-for-award-management-gsa.aspx. 48See id. 

SUSPEND Act addresses this problem by making it clear that the 

single regulation adopted must strengthen the identification and 

referral process of those contractors and grantees that repeatedly 

fail to perform. 

Dual regulations for procurement and non-procurement programs 

There are currently two separate regulations governing S&D for 

procurement and non-procurement programs.40 FAR Subpart 9.4— 

promulgated by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) 

governs procurement regulations, while the non-procurement common rule governs anything other than a procurement. This includes such thing as ‘‘grants, cooperative agreements, scholarships, 

fellowships’’ and many others.41 If a contractor is excluded under 

one of the regulations, there is reciprocity between both of the regulations and it counts as a suspension or debarment Governmentwide.42

In 2008, the Suspension and Debarment Committee of the ABA 

Public Contract Law Section suggested that the two regulations be 

consolidated into one regulation with the non-procurement common 

rule approach being adopted, which does not exclude a contractor 

upon receipt of a ‘‘Notice of Proposed Debarment.’’ 43

Persistent problems with the system for award management 

Previously, separate acquisition systems tracked different aspects 

of the procurement process, described as follows. The EPLS listed 

all those individuals or organizations that were excluded from 

doing business with the Federal Government.44 A contracting officer was required to check the EPLS before awarding funds to a 

prospective vendor.45 The Central Contract Registration (CCR) system was the primary supplier database for the Federal Government. Finally, the Online Representations and Certification Application (ORCA) collected ‘‘vendor representations and certifications 

of business information that is required by law for contract 

award.’’ 46

In 2012, as the first phase of the Integrated Acquisition Environment effort, these three systems were consolidated into the System 

of Award Management (SAM). Issues with SAM were present from 

the start.47 When the system first went online in July, it had to 

almost immediately be taken off-line due to performance issues.48

This delayed the issuance of timely awards and also caused some 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

49See id. 50See General Services Administration, System for Award Management Security Vulnerability 

FAQs, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/167855. 51FAR 9.405 (2013). 52See Gordon & Duvall, supra note 6. 53See id. The three-year period tracked was for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Id. 54See id. 55See Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively?: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Angela B. Styles, Partner, Crowell & Moring). 56See id. 57See Inspector General Report, supra note 32, at 3. 58See id. 59See Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, 72 Fed. Reg. 7588 (Feb. 16, 2007). 60See Karen L. Manos, Complying with the New Mandatory Disclosure Rule, Gov’t Contract 

Cost, Pricing and Accounting Report,. 1, Gov’t Contract Costs, Pricing & Accountability Report 

at 1,(2009), available at http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/ManosComplyingWithMandatoryDisclosureRule.pdf. 61See Contractor Compliance Program and Integrity Reporting, 72 Fed. Reg. 64019 (Nov. 14, 

2007). 

agencies to stop using the system altogether.49 More recently, GSA 

officials identified security vulnerabilities in SAM, some of which 

allowed existing users in the system to view others’ registration information.50

As was the case with the EPLS, a contracting officer is required 

to check the SAM exclusions list before contract award.51

Inconsistent application of administrative agreements 

Use of administrative agreements is increasing in recent years.52

In a 2012 report, GAO found DoD used such agreements in 30 

cases over a three-year period.53 Administrative agreements are 

currently unregulated; it is up to the discretion of the SDO as to 

whether or not to enter into an administrative agreement.54

Administrative agreements can be used in lieu of suspension or 

debarment where the SDO decides it is inappropriate to take suspension or debarment action at the time.55 These agreements are 

designed to ensure compliance such that future S&D action will be 

unnecessary.56 Administrative agreements usually include ‘‘a requirement for a code of ethics, a training and compliance program, 

and a mechanism for reporting misconduct.’’ 57 Violations of administrative agreements can lead to S&D actions.58

Mandatory disclosure rule 

In February 2007, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and 

the Defense Acquisitions Regulations Council (Councils) proposed 

amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require Government contractors to have a code of ethics and business conduct 

and to promote Office of the Inspector General (OIG) fraud hotlines 

by displaying posters.59 In May 2007, the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) requested the Councils to consider amending the FAR to require Government contractors to notify the Government if they 

identify violations of criminal law or contract overpayment. In response, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy directed the FAR 

Councils to implement DOJ’s recommendations.60 The Councils 

proposed a mandatory reporting requirement in response to another DOJ request in late 2007.61 In the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Congress further required that the FAR rule included ‘‘timely notification by Federal contractors of violations of 

Federal criminal law or overpayments in connection with the 

award or performance of covered contracts or subcontracts, includVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:44 Dec 31, 2014 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR669.XXX HR669

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

62See Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 110–252, §6102, 122 Stat. 2386 (2008). 63See Contractor Business Ethics Compliance Program and Disclosure Requirements, 73. Fed. 

Reg. 67064, 67066 (Nov. 12, 2008). 64Manos, supra note 56, at 4. 65See Brian D. Miller, The Federal Acquisition Regulation Mandatory Disclosure Rule Program at the U.S. General Services Administration Office of the Inspector General, at 2 (2012), 

available at http://www.gsaig.gov/?LinkServID=FC200536-C294-E918-1FD147DE0F340B80 

&showMeta=0 (noting that at the time the mandatory disclosure rule took effect, the program 

was receiving less than 10 disclosures per year). 66For example, the Department of Treasury received 0 disclosures from the date of enactment 

of the mandatory disclosure rule, while the Department of Energy and the Department of Veterans Affairs had just 1 and 3 disclosures, respectively. See E-mail from Sheldon Shoemaker, 

Special Assistant to the Inspector Gen., Small Bus. Admin. to Eric Cho, H. Comm. on Oversight 

and Gov’t Reform (Mar. 13, 2014, 10:15 EST) (on file with recipient). 67See id. The components that handle mandatory disclosures within HHS include: the Office 

of Counsel to the Inspector General, the Office of Audit Services, and the Office of Investigations. See id. 68See, e.g., GAO–11–739, supra note 2, at 6; Manuel, supra note 1, at 16–17 (noting studies 

found the vast majority of debarment actions mandatory). 

ing those performed outside the United States and those for commercial items.’’ 62

The final rule took effect in December 2008.63 The mandatory 

disclosure rule requires ‘‘Government contractors and subcontractors to disclose to the Government whenever they have ‘credible 

evidence’ of certain criminal violations, a violation of the False 

Claims Act, or a significant ‘overpayment’ in connection with the 

award, performance or closeout of a Government contract or subcontract.’’ 64 The mandatory disclosure rule was created as a response to the lack of voluntary disclosures from contractors or subcontractors.65

The Committee is aware that some agencies with weak or deficient S&D programs also appear to have weak mandatory disclosure programs. These agencies either do not have a specific point 

person for outside entities to disclose reportable incidents or do not 

have an established process to handle disclosures. The number of 

disclosures vary widely among agencies, with no reasonable association with the volume of contracting activities, while a handful 

agencies report no or very few disclosures.66 Most agencies use the 

OIG to handle disclosures, but some do not. For example, multiple 

components within HHS handle disclosures in that agency.67

The Committee believes that there should be a single component 

within the agency, such as the OIG, with clear procedures to handle disclosures under the mandatory disclosure rule. Serious violations should also be referred from the OIG to the agency’s S&D official for further review. 

Oversight by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

The SUSPEND Act is the outgrowth of Committee hearings concerning the effectiveness of the Government’s current S&D programs in light of reports detailing the numerous flaws in the current system.68 Starting in the 112th Congress, the Committee 

began a detailed inquiry concerning each agency’s S&D program. 

On October 6, 2011, the Committee held a hearing entitled: ‘‘Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Are Federal Agencies Making Full Use of 

Suspension and Debarment Sanctions?’’ This hearing examined 

why some agencies are effective at using the S&D remedy to weed 

out contractors who defraud the government while others languish 

far behind. This hearing highlighted characteristics of agencies 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

69See American Bar Association, Public Contract Law Section, Committee on Debarment and 

Suspension, Report on the Study of Federal Debarment and Suspension Processes Working 

Draft (2008) [hereinafter ABA 2008 Working Draft]; see also Jessica Tillipman, The Congressional War on Contractors, 45 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 235 (2013). 70Some of these proposals are discussed in more detail infra. 71See ABA 2008 Working Draft, supra note 47, at 1; Tillipman, supra note 47, at 236–37. 

with effective S&D programs while illustrating the substantial 

weaknesses of other agencies’ S&D programs. 

On June 12, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled: ‘‘Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and 

Debarment Effectively?’’ This hearing once again examined the continued shortcomings of the S&D system such that inconsistent and 

fragmented approaches persisted and contracts continue to be 

awarded to contractors or grantees where failure has been the past 

result. It also took note of the recent growth in grants spending. 

This hearing highlighted that the S&D process is still in disarray 

and that greater and more comprehensive reform is needed. 

Though there has been some improvement with S&D in recent 

years, the Committee’s hearings have established the need for further S&D reform. In a time where there are constant news reports 

regarding another contractor who has defrauded the government or 

repeatedly failed to perform its contracts, it has never been more 

important to have a robust S&D process. In order to better protect 

the taxpayer and the business interests of the Federal Government 

and to provide a level playing field for vast majority of companies 

and individuals that are responsible contractors and grantees, the 

S&D process needs to become more transparent, consistent, and effective. 

Divergent statutory and debarment practices 

In addition to weaknesses in agencies’ S&D programs, there has 

also been a growing amount of legislation from various Congressional members creating mandatory statutory suspensions and 

debarments.69 The 112th Congress enacted or considered numerous 

narrowly-focused measures to bolster the S&D function. These proposals, while well-intentioned, are often impractical or have limited 

outcomes (see e.g., P.L. 112–74; P.L. 112–81; P.L. 112–56; H.R. 

2838; H.R. 3184; H.R. 3338; H.R. 3588; H.R. 3638; S. 914; S. 1196; 

S. 1258; S. 1363; S. 1472).70 They are ineffective because they impose mandatory statutory debarments in specific circumstances, 

tying the hands of the S&D offices and transforming the system 

into a punitive approach that diverges from the basic purpose of 

S&D, i.e. to protect the business interests of the government.71

Without comprehensive reform, these trends are likely to continue. 

LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY HISTORY

Office of Management and Budget guidance on S&D 

On November 15, 2011, Jacob Lew, then-Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), released a Memorandum following a GAO report directing the 24 agencies subject to the Chief 

Financial Officers Act (‘‘CFO Act’’) to take action to strengthen 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

72Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew, Director, U.S. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, to the Heads 

of Executive Dep’ts and Agencies (Nov. 15, 2011), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-02.pdf. 73 Id. 74 Id. 75 Id. 76 Id. 77 Id. 78 ISDC Annual Report, supra note 5, at 1. 79See Inspector General Report, supra note 32, at 5. 80See id. 

their S&D programs.72 The Memorandum specified action to be 

taken in the following four areas: 

(1) Appoint a senior accountable official, if one has not already 

been designated, who shall be responsible for: (a) assessing the 

agency’s suspension and debarment program, including the adequacy of available training and resources (including, where appropriate, full-time staff), (b) ensuring the agency maintains effective 

internal controls and tracking capabilities, taking into consideration the agency’s mission, organizational structure, and level of 

procurement and grant-making activities; and (c) ensuring that the 

agency participates regularly on the Interagency Suspension and 

Debarment Committee.73

(2) Review internal policies, procedures, and guidance to ensure 

that the agency is protecting the Government’s interests and taxpayer funds by effectively using suspension and debarment, when 

appropriate, as well as other remedies available to the agency that 

are designed to ensure, before an award is made, that potential 

contractors and recipients have the requisite business integrity.74

(3) Ensure that the agency’s award official(s) review relevant 

databases and other information sources prior to the award of any 

Federal grants, contracts, or benefits, to prevent awards from being 

made to entities that are suspended or debarred or are otherwise 

non-responsible.75

(4) Take prompt corrective action, including appropriate action 

regarding the specific award and establishment of systemic controls 

and procedures to prevent recurrence, when the agency determines 

that it improperly made an award to a suspended or debarred entity.76

The Memorandum also directed the ISDC to assist the agencies 

with these activities and to ‘‘develop training and share best practices, ensure effective interagency coordination of suspension and 

debarment actions, and [to] report on agencies’ activities as required.’’ 77

Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee 

The ISDC is designed to be a forum where agencies can discuss 

best practices, trends, current issues and challenges and is supposed to provide expert analysis and advice.78 The ISDC includes 

about 50 member agencies and ‘‘[c]ommittee members meet monthly to discuss topics of interest in Government-wide S&D’’ and to 

‘‘monitor[] participation in the Government S&D system.’’ 79 The 

ISDC also helps to ensure agencies demonstrate transparency and 

administrative fairness when taking suspension or debarment actions.80


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

81 Brian Young, Ready for Primetime? The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee, 

the Non-Procurement Common Rule, and Lead Agency Coordination, 4 Wm. & Mary Pol’y Rev. 

110, 120–21 (2012). 82See id. at 122. 83See id. at 130. 84Todd J. Canni, Shoot First, Ask Questions Later: An Examination and Critique of Suspension and Debarment Practice Under the FAR, Including a Discussion of the Mandatory Disclosure Rule, the IBM Suspension, and Other Noteworthy Developments, 38 Pub. Cont. L.J. 547, 

562 (2009). 85 Young, supra note 57, at 111. 86See Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 110–417, § 872, 122 

Stat. 4356, 4555 (2008); ISDC Annual Report, supra note 5. 87See National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013, Pub. L. No. 112–239, 126 Stat. 1632– 

2312 (2013) [hereinafter ‘‘NDAA FY2013’’]. 88 NDAA FY2013, Pub. L. No. 112–239, 126 Stat. 1632–2312 (2013). 89 Id. at § 1682–82, 126 Stat. 2086. 90 Honoring American’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Pub. L. 

No. 112–154, § 706, 126 Stat. 1206 (2012). Others measures passed by the 112th Congress that 

address suspension and debarment include the following: (a) requiring consideration of debarment and suspension in DoD guidance regarding the remedial actions to be taken against contractors found to have supplied counterfeit electronic parts, see National Defense Authorization 

Act for FY 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–81, § 818, 125 Stat. 1493–1500 (Dec. 31, 2011); (b) prohibiting 

the use of funds made available under certain appropriations measures from being used to enter 

contracts or agreements with corporations that have any unpaid federal tax liability or that 

have been convicted of a felony under federal law within the preceding 24 months, unless the 

agency has considered excluding the company and determined the action is not necessary to protect the interests of the government, see Manuel, supra note 1, at 19; and (c) requiring, as part 

of a study and report, the number of persons who have been debarred or suspended because 

of delinquent tax debt over the past three years, see id. 

The ISDC came into existence in 1986 when President Reagan 

issued Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension.81 This 

Executive Order restricted the jurisdiction of the ISDC to non-procurement matters.82 Subsequently, the ISDC’s role began to grow 

and it began to coordinate S&D issues throughout the various 

agencies.83 Currently, the ISDC also serves as ‘‘a regulatory drafting body for revisions to the government-wide non-procurement 

suspension and debarment common rule.’’ 84

In 2008, Congress passed legislation which required the ISDC to 

coordinate a lead agency if more than one agency had an interest 

in taking a suspension or debarment action.85 In addition, the legislation required the ISDC to report every year to Congress on the 

status of the S&D system.86

112th Congress’s Legislative Changes to S&D 

The 112th Congress enacted several measures narrowly addressing some areas of S&D in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for FY2013.87 These included mandating a minimum level of staffing and maintaining adequate resources for the S&D functions of 

DoD, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of State, and 

the U.S. Agency for International Development; 88 amending the 

Small Business Act ‘‘to restate the grounds upon which small businesses that misrepresent their size or status (e.g., woman-owned) 

are suspended, and requiring annual reports by the Small Business 

Administration on the number of contractors proposed for exclusion, among other things,89 and requiring that the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) debar for not less than five years firms that 

willfully and intentionally misrepresented their status to the VA’s 

Veterans First Contracting program.90

SECTION-BY-SECTION (AS AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE) 

Section 1. Short Title; table of contents 

Provides the title and the table of contents. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

Section 2. Consolidation of suspension and debarment offices 

Consolidates more than 40 executive agency S&D offices and programs into one centralized board named the Board of Suspension 

and Debarment (the Board). Encourages cost savings by sharing 

administrative resources with the pre-existing Civilian Board of 

Contract Appeals, also housed in GSA. 

Allows larger agencies (24 agencies under the Chief Financial Officers Act (31 U.S.C. § 901(b)), listed below) and the military departments (5 U.S.C. § 102) to continue to operate their own independent S&D offices if granted a waiver upon demonstration of an 

effective S&D program within the agency. 

The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the 

Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 

Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Agency for International 

Development, the General Services Administration, the National 

Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office 

of Personnel Management, the Small Business Administration, and 

the Social Security Administration. 

Allows an outside entity, such as the United States Postal Service (USPS), to enter into an agreement to transfer S&D activities 

to the Board as needed. 

Requires the Board to oversee the government-wide excluded 

parties database (i.e., the System for Award Management (SAM)) 

to ensure availability of timely, accurate, and complete data, and 

to promote consistent and fair treatment of all persons and entities 

subject to S&D proceedings, including small businesses with limited resources. 

Mandates that the annual report to Congress (by the Board and 

the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)) include the number and summary of any instance where the agency 

head made a determination to override the S&D decision and allowed a suspended or debarred entity to receive new contracts or 

grants. 

Section 3. Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee 

Strengthens the existing ISDC by formalizing and codifying it in 

statute (it currently operates pursuant to an Executive Order) and 

designating as Chair, the Administrator of OMB’s Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP) and as Vice Chairs, the Chair of the 

Board of Suspension and Debarment and a designee of the Secretary of Defense. 

Refines the annual ISDC report process (under Sec. 873 of 

FY2009 NDAA) by requiring it to be timely and to include data on 

the number of referrals, timeliness of case disposition, the breakdown of discretionary and nondiscretionary actions, and the number and summary of any agency waivers where a suspended or 

debarred entity received new federal funds. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Section 4. Single case management system 

Establishes a single government-wide web-based S&D case management system for use by the Board and agency S&D officials. Requires the case status and the name of the official handling the 

case be updated each month. 

Prohibits any release of pre-decisional information, including the 

names of the entities or individuals referred to, unless determined 

to be necessary to protect the interest of the Government. 

Section 5. Single regulation for procurement and nonprocurement 

programs 

Combines the two separate S&D regulations governing contracts 

and grants into a single, comprehensive regulation that provides: • the use of show cause letters to ensure accused parties are 

heard prior to any adverse action being taken against them; • transparent handling of all cases, including public availability of all final resolutions; • timely and consistent referrals, including the identification 

of contractors and grantees that repeatedly fail to perform; • standard procedures for an expedited review process to 

handle contract or grant fraud in a contingency or time-sensitive environment, in both military and non-military settings; • acceptance or rejection of referrals by the SDO within 30 

days; and • resolution of S&D cases within 6 months from the initial 

referral date. 

Section 6. Government Accountability Office review 

Requires GAO review of the Board, agency S&D offices, and the 

case management system effectiveness. 

Section 7. Coordination of remedies for fraud and corruption related 

to procurement and grant activities 

Requires joint agency head/Inspector General guidance in each 

agency to institutionalize efficient agency-wide coordination of remedies for fraud and corruption related to procurement and grant activities, including legal, regulatory, administrative, and contractual 

remedies to maximize timely recovery of funds. 

Section 8. Transfer, redesignation, and amendment of other provision of law relating to debarment and suspension 

Provides technical or clerical amendments in the U.S. codes. 

Section 9. Definitions 

Provides the definitions for the purpose of this bill. 

Section 10. Authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes an additional $2 million for each of FY2015 through 

FY2021 to carry out the functions of the Board and for implementation of the case management system. This augments the current 

GSA funding for its S&D operations (approx. six full-time and 

three part-time employees). 

Section 11. Effective date 

Provides the effective date. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

An amendment offered by Reps. Chaffetz and Speier was adopted 

by the Committee. The amendment further strengthens the SUSPEND Act by requiring timely referral and handling of S&D cases. 

Specifically, the amendment provides a 30-day time limit for the 

referred cases to be either accepted or rejected by the S&D official. 

If additional information is needed, the agency official or the IG 

who prepared the case file must be notified. It also requires all 

S&D cases to be resolved within 6 months from the initial referral 

date. The agency official or the IG who prepared the case file will 

be notified of any cases unresolved within that time frame and be 

updated every 3 months until the final resolution of the case. 

The amendment further requires that the annual report to Congress include the number and summary of any instances where the 

agency head made determinations to override S&D decisions and 

allowed a suspended or debarred entity to receive new contracts or 

grants. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On October 29, 2013, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 3345, as amended, by voice 

vote, a quorum being present. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill consolidates more than 

40 executive agency suspension and debarment offices and programs into one centralized board named the Board of Suspension 

and Debarment, and encourages cost savings by sharing administrative resources with the pre-existing Civilian Board of Contract 

Appeals. As such this bill does not relate to employment or access 

to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 3345 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

H.R. 3345 requires the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget to develop one generally applicable regulation on S&D for 

procurement and nonprocurement programs. The bill also requires 

the heads of each executive agency and the Inspector General of 

the agency to issue guidance that institutionalizes efficient agencywide coordination of remedies for fraud and corruption related to 

procurement and grant activities. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether the 

provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 3345 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

3345. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

H.R. 3345 from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

JANUARY 17, 2014. 

Hon. DARRELL ISSA, Chairman, 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3345, the SUSPEND Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3345—SUSPEND Act 

Summary: H.R. 3345 would consolidate most federal efforts to 

suspend and debar individuals or organizations from receiving federal grants and contracts into a single office at the General Services Administration. In general, grantees or vendors may be prohibited or suspended from receiving federal funds because they have 

engaged in dishonest, unethical, or illegal conduct or are unable to 

perform their responsibilities. The bill also would establish an 

Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee to coordinate 

activities, and authorize creation of a web-based management system to track all federal suspension and debarment cases. Finally, 

H.R. 3345 would authorize the appropriation of $2 million annually 

over the 2015–2021 period for these activities. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts and based on 

information from GSA, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 

3345 would cost $10 million over the 2015–2019 period (and an additional $4 million after 2019). Enacting the bill could affect direct 

spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net change in spending by those agencies would be 

negligible. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 3345 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: For this estimate, 

CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted in fiscal year 2014 and 

that the authorized amounts will be appropriated for each year. Estimated outlays are based on information from GSA and historical 

spending patterns of similar programs. 

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3345 is shown on the 

following table. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 800 (general government). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014- 

2019 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ...................................................... 0 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Estimated Outlays ....................................................... 0 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. Enacting the 

bill could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

CBO estimates, however, that any net change in spending by those 

agencies would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect 

revenues. 

Intergovernmental and Private-sector Impact: H.R. 3345 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Estimate Prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford: Impact 

on state, local, and tribal governments; Melissa Merrell; Impact on 

the private sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate Approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE V—GENERAL ASSISTANCE 

ADMINISTRATION 

Chap. Sec. 

* * * * * * * 

64. Suspension and Debarment ........................................................................ 6401 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 64—SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT 

Sec. 

6401. Board of Suspension and Debarment. 

6402. Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee. 

6403. Single regulation for suspension and debarment for procurement and nonprocurement programs. 

6404. Uniform suspension, debarment, or exclusion from procurement or nonprocurement activity. 

§ 6401. Board of Suspension and Debarment 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the General Services 

Administration a board for suspension and debarment to be known 

as the Board of Suspension and Debarment (in this section referred 

to as the ‘‘Board’’). 

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Board are to serve as a centralized body to manage all executive agency suspension and debarment activities and improve the suspension and debarment system 

through— 

(1) the transparent and efficient handling of cases; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

(2) the effective oversight of the Governmentwide database 

containing the list of all excluded parties ineligible for Federal 

programs pursuant to Executive Orders No. 12549 and No. 

12689, including oversight to ensure receipt of information from 

other agencies and to ensure timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of the database; 

(3) the consistent and fair treatment of all persons and entities subject to suspension or debarment proceedings, including 

small businesses with limited resources; and 

(4) active engagement with remedy coordination officials (as 

defined in section 2307(i)(10) of title 10 and section 4506 of title 

41) within executive agencies for efficient referral of contractors, 

grantees, or other recipients of Federal financial assistance suspected of committing wrongful actions or repeatedly performing 

poorly. 

(c) EFFECT OF DETERMINATIONS OF BOARD.— 

(1) CONCLUSIVE ON GOVERNMENTWIDE BASIS.—The determination by the Board on whether or not to debar or suspend 

a contractor, grantee, or other recipient of Federal financial assistance is conclusive on a Governmentwide basis. No other 

agency may take a contrary suspension and debarment action 

on a Governmentwide basis with respect to the same contractor, 

grantee, or other recipient based on the facts and circumstances 

in the administrative record considered by the Board. 

(2) CONSIDERATION OF NEW OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.—In 

considering any new or additional evidence of nonresponsibility 

of a contractor, grantee, or other recipient of Federal financial 

assistance not previously considered by the Board, an agency, 

in determining whether to award another grant or contract or 

other Federal financial assistance to such contractor, grantee, 

or other recipient, may consider the cumulative effect of the 

facts and circumstances previously considered by the Board. 

(d) MEMBERSHIP.— (1) APPOINTMENT.—The Board shall consist of members appointed by the Administrator of General Services (in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy) 

from a register of applicants maintained by the Administrator 

of General Services, in accordance with rules issued by the Administrator of General Services (in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy) for establishing 

and maintaining a register of eligible applicants and selecting 

members. The Administrator of General Services shall appoint 

a member without regard to political affiliation and solely on 

the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform 

the duties and responsibilities of a member. 

(2) CHAIR.—The Administrator of General Services shall designate one member of the Board to serve as Chair of the Board. 

The position of Chair of the Board shall be a Senior Executive 

Service position (as defined by section 3132(a)(2) of title 5). 

(3) REMOVAL.—The Administrator of General Services, with 

the consent of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, may remove the Chair or any other member of the Board. 

(e) SHARING OF RESOURCES.—The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Board such administrative resources as are 

necessary for the Board to carry out its functions. In carrying out 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

this subsection, the Administrator may provide for the sharing of 

administrative resources of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, 

such as the Board’s information technology infrastructure, legal resources, and facilities. 

(f) PARTICIPATION BY ADDITIONAL ENTITIES.—The Board may 

enter into an agreement with any other entity that receives Federal 

funds for the Board to perform suspension and debarment activities 

on behalf of the entity. 

(g) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than October 30 of each year, the 

Chair of the Board shall submit to the relevant congressional 

committees a report containing the following: 

(A) A summary of the activities and accomplishments of 

the Board in the Governmentwide suspension and debarment system, including the total number of referrals, timeliness of case disposition, and breakdown of discretionary 

and nondiscretionary cases. 

(B) The number and summary of agency head determinations, if any, that allowed a suspended or debarred contractor, grantee, or other recipient of Federal financial assistance to receive new Federal funds. 

(C) Recommendations to improve the suspension and debarment system. 

(2) FORM OF REPORT.—The Chair of the Board may combine 

the report with the report required by section 6402(c)(7) of this 

title. 

(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) EXECUTIVE AGENCY.—The term ‘‘executive agency’’ has the 

meaning provided in section 133 of title 41. 

(2) RELEVANT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term ‘‘relevant congressional committees’’ means each of the following: 

(A) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

of the House of Representatives. 

(B) The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

(3) INTERAGENCY SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT COMMITTEE.—The term ‘‘Interagency Suspension and Debarment 

Committee’’ means the committee established under section 

6402 of this title. 

§ 6402. Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (in this section referred to as the 

‘‘Interagency Committee’’ which shall replace the committee constituted under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Order No. 12549. 

(b) CHAIR AND VICE CHAIRS.— 

(1) CHAIR.—The Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall serve as Chair of the Interagency Committee. 

(2) VICE CHAIRS.—There are at least 2 Vice Chairs of the 

Interagency Committee. The Chair of the Board of Suspension 

and Debarment shall serve as a Vice Chair. The Secretary of 

Defense shall designate one official from the Department of Defense to serve as a Vice Chair. 

(c) DUTIES.—The Interagency Committee shall— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

(1) resolve issues regarding which of several Federal agencies 

is the lead agency having responsibility to initiate suspension or 

debarment proceedings, including with respect to contracts in 

connection with contingency operations; 

(2) coordinate actions among interested agencies with respect 

to such action; 

(3) encourage and assist Federal agencies in entering into cooperative efforts to pool resources and achieve operational efficiencies in the Governmentwide suspension and debarment system; 

(4) recommend to the Office of Management and Budget 

changes to the Government suspension and debarment system 

and its rules, if such recommendations are approved by a majority of the Interagency Committee; 

(5) authorize the Office of Management and Budget to issue 

guidelines that implement those recommendations; 

(6) authorize the Chair of the Interagency Committee to establish subcommittees as appropriate to best enable the Interagency Committee to carry out its functions; and 

(7) not later than October 30 of each year, submit to Congress 

an annual report on— 

(A) the progress and efforts to improve the suspension 

and debarment system; 

(B) member agencies’ active participation in the Interagency Committee’s work; 

(C) a summary of each agency’s activities and accomplishments in the Governmentwide suspension and debarment system, including the total number of referrals, timeliness of case disposition, and breakdown of discretionary 

and nondiscretionary cases; and 

(D) the number and summary of agency head determinations, if any, that allowed a suspended or debarred contractor, grantee, or other recipient of Federal financial assistance to receive new Federal funds. 

(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘contingency operation’’ 

has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10. 

§ 6403. Single regulation for suspension and debarment for 

procurement and nonprocurement programs 

(a) SINGLE REGULATION.—The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall maintain one generally applicable regulation on suspension and debarment for procurement and nonprocurement programs. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The regulation maintained pursuant to 

subsection (a) shall provide, at a minimum, for the procedures 

and other requirements set forth in paragraphs (2) through (8). 

(2) ADVANCE NOTICE OF ADVERSE ACTION.—The regulation 

shall provide procedures for the Board to provide advance notice of adverse action before any adverse action may be taken 

against a private entity or individual, unless the Chair of the 

Board of Suspension and Debarment or the suspension and debarment officer of an executive agency granted a waiver under 

section 2(b)(2) of the SUSPEND Act determines that an expeVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:44 Dec 31, 2014 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR669.XXX HR669

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

dient action is necessary to protect the interest of the Government. 

(3) TRANSPARENT HANDLING OF CASES.—The regulation shall 

provide procedures for transparent handling of all cases, including public availability of— 

(A) the outcome of all referred cases, including the rationale for the decision to take or not take an adverse action; 

and 

(B) the administrative agreements entered into by the 

Government in order to resolve a suspension or debarment 

proceeding. 

(4) TIMELY REFERRALS AND PROCESSING OF CASES.— 

(A) The regulation shall provide procedures to strengthen 

timely referrals of cases, including— 

(i) the role of the agency remedy coordination official 

to act upon cases brought to such official’s attention in 

a timely manner (as required in section 7 of the SUSPEND Act); and 

(ii) requirements for the Board or the agency suspension and debarment office to review the sufficiency of 

the information in the referred cases and to notify the 

agency remedy coordination official and cognizant Inspector General (if the case is originated from the Office of Inspector General) within 30 days after the initial referral date for any additional information if 

needed. 

(B) The regulation shall require all cases to be disposed 

of within 6 months after the initial referral date, unless the 

Chair of the Board or the agency suspension and debarment officer provides a written explanation and estimated 

timeline to the agency remedy coordination official and cognizant Inspector General (if the case is originated from the 

Office of Inspector General). Such written explanation shall 

be updated every 3 months until the final resolution of the 

case. 

(5) CONSISTENT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.—The regulation shall provide procedures to ensure consistent standards 

and procedures that treat all alleged violators fairly and expeditiously, including small businesses with limited legal resources. 

(6) REPEATED FAILURE TO PERFORM.—The regulation shall 

provide procedures to strengthen the identification and referral 

(for suspension or debarment consideration) of contractors and 

grantees that repeatedly fail to perform. 

(7) CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES.—The regulation shall provide 

procedures for an expedited review process to handle contract or 

grant fraud in a non-traditional or time-sensitive environment, 

either in a military or non-military setting. 

§ 6404. Uniform suspension, debarment, or exclusion from 

procurement or nonprocurement activity 

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR REGULATIONS.—Regulations shall be 

issued providing that provisions for the debarment, suspension, or 

other exclusion of a participant in a procurement activity under the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, or in a nonprocurement activity 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

under regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12549, 

shall have government-wide effect. No agency shall allow a party to 

participate in any procurement or nonprocurement activity if any 

agency has debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded (to the extent 

specified in the exclusion agreement) that party from participation 

in a procurement or nonprocurement activity. 

(b) AUTHORITY TO GRANT EXCEPTION.—The regulations issued 

pursuant to subsection (a) shall provide that an agency may grant 

an exception permitting a debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded party to participate in procurement activities of that agency 

to the extent exceptions are authorized under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or to participate in nonprocurement activities of 

that agency to the extent exceptions are authorized under regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12549. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) The term ‘‘procurement activities’’ means all acquisition 

programs and activities of the Federal Government, as defined 

in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Such term includes subcontracts at any tier, other than subcontracts for commercially 

available off-the-shelf items (as defined in section 104 of title 

41), except that in the case of a contract for commercial items, 

such term includes only first-tier subcontracts. 

(2) The term ‘‘nonprocurement activities’’ means all programs 

and activities involving Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits, as covered by Executive Order No. 12549 

and the Office of Management and Budget guidelines implementing that order. 

(3) The term ‘‘agency’’ means an Executive agency as defined 

in section 103 of title 5. 

* * * * * * * 

DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

(Public Law 110-417) 

AN ACT To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of 

the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of 

the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as 

follows: 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

Subtitle G—Governmentwide Acquisition Improvements 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 873. Role of Interagency Committee on Debarment and Suspension.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle G—Governmentwide Acquisition Improvements 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 873. Role of Interagency Committee on Debarment and Suspension.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle G—Governmentwide Acquisition 

Improvements 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 873. ROLE OF INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON DEBARMENT AND 

SUSPENSION. 

ø(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Interagency Committee on Debarment 

and Suspension shall— 

ø(1) resolve issues regarding which of several Federal agencies is the lead agency having responsibility to initiate suspension or debarment proceedings, including with respect to contracts in connection with contingency operations’’ before the 

semicolon; 

ø(2) coordinate actions among interested agencies with respect to such action; 

ø(3) encourage and assist Federal agencies in entering into 

cooperative efforts to pool resources and achieve operational efficiencies in the Governmentwide suspension and debarment 

system; 

ø(4) recommend to the Office of Management and Budget 

changes to the Government suspension and debarment system 

and its rules, if such recommendations are approved by a majority of the Interagency Committee; 

ø(5) authorize the Office of Management and Budget to issue 

guidelines that implement those recommendations; 

ø(6) authorize the chair of the Committee to establish subcommittees as appropriate to best enable the Interagency Committee to carry out its functions; and 

ø(7) submit to Congress an annual report on— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

ø(A) the progress and efforts to improve the suspension 

and debarment system; 

ø(B) member agencies’ active participation in the committee’s work; 

ø(C) a summary of each agency’s activities and accomplishments in the Governmentwide debarment system; and 

ø(D) a summary of suspensions, debarments, and administrative agreements during the previous year. 

ø(b) DATE OF SUBMITTAL OF ANNUAL REPORTS.—The annual report required by subsection (a)(7) shall be submitted not later than 

January 31 of each year, beginning with January 31, 2014. 

ø(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

ø(1) The term ‘‘contingency operation’’ has the meaning given 

that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code. 

ø(2) The term ‘‘Interagency Committee on Debarment and 

Suspension’’ means the committee constituted under sections 4 

and 5 of Executive Order No. 12549.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAMLINING ACT OF 1994 

(Public Law 103-355) 

AN ACT To revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal Government, 

and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous 

* * * * * * * 

PART II—ACQUISITIONS GENERALLY

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 2455. Uniform suspension and debarment. ¿ 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous 

* * * * * * * 

PART II—ACQUISITIONS GENERALLY 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

øSEC. 2455. UNIFORM SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT. 

ø(a) REQUIREMENT FOR REGULATIONS.—Regulations shall be 

issued providing that provisions for the debarment, suspension, or 

other exclusion of a participant in a procurement activity under the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, or in a nonprocurement activity 

under regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12549, 

shall have government-wide effect. No agency shall allow a party 

to participate in any procurement or nonprocurement activity if 

any agency has debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded (to the 

extent specified in the exclusion agreement) that party from participation in a procurement or nonprocurement activity. 

ø(b) AUTHORITY TO GRANT EXCEPTION.—The regulations issued 

pursuant to subsection (a) shall provide that an agency may grant 

an exception permitting a debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded party to participate in procurement activities of that agency 

to the extent exceptions are authorized under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or to participate in nonprocurement activities of 

that agency to the extent exceptions are authorized under regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12549. 

ø(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

ø(1) The term ‘‘procurement activities’’ means all acquisition 

programs and activities of the Federal Government, as defined 

in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Such term includes subcontracts at any tier, other than subcontracts for commercially 

available off-the-shelf items (as defined in section 35(c) of the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 431(c))), 

except that in the case of a contract for commercial items, such 

term includes only first-tier subcontracts. 

ø(2) The term ‘‘nonprocurement activities’’ means all programs and activities involving Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits, as covered by Executive 

Order No. 12549 and the Office of Management and Budget 

guidelines implementing that order. 

ø(3) The term ‘‘agency’’ means an Executive agency as defined in section 103 of title 5, United States Code.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART G—INSURANCE AND ANNUITIES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 89—HEALTH INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 8902a. Debarment and other sanctions 

(a) * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

(b) The Office of Personnel Management shall bar the following 

providers of health care services or supplies from participating in 

the program under this chapter: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) Any provider that is currently debarred, suspended, or 

otherwise excluded from any procurement or nonprocurement 

activity (within the meaning of øsection 2455 of the Federal 

Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994¿ section 6404 of title 31). 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS